About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> that leads us now to susan rice, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations who went on national television and said this attack in benghazi, libya, was probably because of this anti-muslim film. >> reporter: exactly. >> she had talking points, right? where did those talking points come from? did they come from petraeus and the cia, were they edited later by the white house, do we know? >> reporter: we don't know. you heard peter king was asked that specific question. according to him and some others, we still don't know exactly where the disconnect was, if you will, between what the intelligence community now says that they believed at the time and the talking points that ended up with susan rice that ended up on television that sunday afterwards. it still doesn't seem to be very clear. the reason why he is now the former cia director is because of the affair that david petraeus had. he resigned one week ago. the question is whether or not that would come up at all. he said it was addressed at the beginning and he regretted what happened and that they didn't really address it at all after
that was put out by the entire intelligence committee which susan rice on the 16th, who was asked to go before the people and use that statement did. >> lawmakers still with plenty to say about the september 11th attack on the u.s. mission in benghazi and the obama administration's response. well, now that the senate and house intelligence members have heard from former cia director david petraeus, albeit behind closed doors, we know this indisputable fact. the cia knew the attack was planned and launched by terrorists affiliated with al qaeda. that's according to petraeus' testimony on friday. but two months after the attack, so many questions still remain. the answers to which have a lot of implications to u.s. security. which is why we want to bring in congressman adam schiff who serves on the house intelligence committee. congressman schiff, thank you for joining us. >> it's a pleasure. >> you were there for petraeus' testimony. what did we learn from that hearing? what did you learn from that hearing? >> well, we learned a few things. his testimony and the testimony of the prior day of th
's assessment, susan rice's assessment or your own assessment? >> i think what we first learned in the few hours and days immediately after the attack to today, the intelligence has evolved. certainly there was taking time to gather the information, to analyze it and put forward an assessment. what we do know is that when director petraeus came before us on the 14th, the information that he gave us was not the information that was put out by ambassador rice or by the administration. so it begs the question why wasn't a more complete picture given to the american public more quickly than it was? >> okay. you said that the intelligence has evolved, which means just from a layman's term, you would think that as they gathered information, they learned more than things would change. just from people sitting at home and not for partisans or for people who are on capitol hill, are you actually talk ing to each other about -- getting to the bottom of this or is everyone just talking at each other because i would imagine no administration wants anyone to die on their watch. >> certainly we are talking to
why that was taken out of the talking points given to susan rice. it might have been because they didn't want to tip them off that they knew it was going on. >> i get it. and the information is evolving. certainly the white house should have to be held accountable and answer questions if there is some difference in their messaging. that's certainly true. but, andrew, what administration wants people to die on their watch? no administration wants that. and it certainly appears that many people -- this is an ideological thing to many people. people are contorting themselves to try to make sense of some conspiracy theory and then when you look at it logically, you're like, really? are you kidding me? >> i think regarding benghazi, this happened several weeks before the election. and i think it's just been -- it's really been churned within the media and the political machine. we've lost a little bit of sense of proportion about it, i think, to some degree. >> and it's people who, quite honestly, don't like the president and don't like the white house and they're trying -- as i say, con fo
ambassador susan rice for the talking points. >>> 22 people were hurt in an explosion on a bus in tell aviv. hamas praised the attack but did not claim responsibility. and we have new pictures of an explosion in gaza city. there it is there. officials say at least 142 people have been killed in the eight-day conflict and more than 1,000 people have been wounded. israeli authorities say five people have been killed in israel. 70 more have been wounded. >>> secretary of state hillary clinton condemned that bus attack in tel aviv as she scrambles to salvage any hope for a peace agreement. for the second straight day she's meeting with prime minister benjamin netanyahu. earlier, she sat down with palestinian president mahmoud abbas in the west bank. and now she is sitting down with the egyptian president, mohamed morsi, who is trying to broker a peace deal. the bus attack in tel aviv, how bigative shadow does it cast on this peace process? >> reporter: i think it puts enormous pressure on the prime minister, benjamin netanyahu. if he were inclined to go ahead toward a cease fire -- there were i
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)